I believe you are missing the "intervening rights" portion that was granted for HTC re the 890 patent. Judge Grewal agreed with HTC that the 890 patent was amended enough to "restart the clock" of infringement to when the USPTO reexamination certificate issued in 2011. What that does for HTC is it limits their exposure in terms of infringing revenue. So the section you quoted in terms of wilful infringement went to TPL. I do not believe summary judgement was granted to HTC on straight non-infringement for the 890. I may be completely wrong on that as I skimmed through the 890 portion ofthe ruling. Corrections welcomed